In short, the ideal conservative welfare state would be a libertarian dystopia of even bigger proportions than the liberal welfare state. There is less welfare and more state in it.

But what is deeply ironic is that a magazine that accuses libertarians of isolationism because they oppose American military interventionism has no qualms about recommending a restrictionist immigration policy to keep foreigners out and a protectionist trade policy to keep foreign goods out. If I had to pick a term for this foreign policy, I’d call it neo-isolationism. And maybe I lack imagination, but it is hard to see how a party that wants to engage the world through its “fearsome military” — rather than through voluntary exchange and mutual cooperation — could gain enough moral high ground to craft a winning political message, especially in a war-weary country.

Comments

[1] Tweet: http://twitter.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcafehayek.com%2F2013%2F03%2Fshikha-dalmia-on-the-dystopian-monstrosity-of-a-conservative-welfare-state.html&text=Shikha Dalmia on the Dystopian Monstrosity of a Conservative Welfare State - Cafe Hayek

[2] Shikha Dalmia is always excellent; here – responding to Matthew Continetti’s call, in The Weekly Standard, for a “conservative welfare state” – she is at her very best: http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/09/do-republicans-need-a-conservative-versi